brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:New CCG members
and I were discussing what entry requirements we should have for any more CCG members, because as the wiki grows, we would obviously need more people on the lookout for articles that are complete. What we came up with (well, LegOtaku came up with, I was thinking something along similar lines but he beat me to it :D) was to have it so that if a member successfully nominates 10 articles in a row for completeness status, they can automatically become a member of the Completeness Check Group. The reason it was 10 in a row and not just 10 was that it shows that the user keeps an eye out to make absolutely certain that the articles meet MOS requirements, and gets them in the habit of doing so in the future- if it was just "get 10 articles through" and the user got 10 after say 200 nominations, they'd have an accuracy rate of 5%, and allowing that person to give completeness status to anything whenever they want means 95% of the articles they put through wouldn't actually be complete. Ok, I know 200 nominations is an exaggeration, but it's just an example. So, anyway, what do you think about this? Should this be implemented, are there any alternate suggestions out there, or should we even allow more CCG members? 11:26, June 19, 2010 (UTC) :I think that we need more CCG members. If there are 7000 articles here and we want to get them all to complete, if each current CCG member does one a day, it is going to take us two years! We need more members. 19:49, June 19, 2010 (UTC) ::Also, what I just said doesn't allow for more articles being created. 19:50, June 19, 2010 (UTC) :::Yeah we need more CCG, but we need more logged in editors that will stay.. its good having more members, but it wont be very long until all our editors are CCG.. But I do like LegOtaku's guidelines (or what he implemented).. --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 20:17, June 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::If this comment seems like it's bragging or aloof, say so. I have noticed that most CCG members do not often actually nominate CAs themselves. In fact, activity is way down. I currently am the only one who has gotten more than 100 CAs and have stopped because it simply became boring. It would be nice having ONE new person to stir things up but otherwise it probably wouldn't change anything. 11:26, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :::::CCG members are for granting/declining status, not for nominating/writing complete articles. Sure everyone on the CCG could go out checking for more articles to review, but if you don't see complete articles, what can you do? And I don't really know if this is related to the topic at hand... 12:34, June 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Oh, btw, CCG dont need to nominate stuff, they just add it.. -[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 17:04, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :Ok, so anyway, is everyone ok with adding this criteria? (10 successful noms in a row and you're automatically in?). If there are no objections in a day, I'll take it there are no objections out there (the forum's been open for a while) and implement it 23:52, June 23, 2010 (UTC) Yeah I'm not sure if this is closed but seems good to me. 23:29, June 24, 2010 (UTC) }}